Summary: cpnd: use shared memory based on ckpt name length [#2108]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2108
Peer Reviewer(s):;
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default

Impacted area       Impact y/n
 Docs                    n
 Build system            n
 RPM/packaging           n
 Configuration files     n
 Startup scripts         n
 SAF services            y
 OpenSAF services        n
 Core libraries          n
 Samples                 n
 Tests                   n
 Other                   n

Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):

changeset 529a7b18aea989e8bee4363911b09fe324ac3f42
Author: Hoang Vo <>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:25:22 +0700

        cpnd: use shared memory based on ckpt name length [#2108]

        problem: In the case of CKPT osafckptnd increased 3,5Mb - 240 percent 
on all
        nodes CKPT_INFO size inscrease when support longDN lead to total size

        - From start, cpnd use small format shm.
        - Run time cpnd keep using small format shm until first longDN 
checkpoint is
        created. After that cpnd use big format shm.

Complete diffstat:
 osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpsv_shm.h |    9 +-
 osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_res.c   |  565 
 2 files changed, 536 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:
- Run all osaftest test cases
- Create longDN and shortDN checkpoint sequently

Testing, Expected Results:
- All test cases passed

Conditions of Submission:
ACK from maintainer

Arch      Built     Started    Linux distro
mips        n          n
mips64      n          n
x86         n          n
x86_64      y          y
powerpc     n          n
powerpc64   n          n

Reviewer Checklist:
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]

Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):

___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
    that need proper data filled in.

___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.

___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header

___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.

___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.

___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.

___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
    (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)

___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
    Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.

___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.

___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
    like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.

___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
    cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.

___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
    too much content into a single commit.

___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)

___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
    Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.

___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
    commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.

___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
    of what has changed between each re-send.

___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
    comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.

___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)

___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
    the threaded patch review.

___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
    for in-service upgradability test.

___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
    do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites,!
Opensaf-devel mailing list

Reply via email to